Trunks is GayFollow

No no. Trunk is not gay, Thundra and I are gay. We came out of the closet tonight in celebration of all that is fabulous and glam. And psycho, dear, those shoes you're wearing are just divine! To die for!

Totem

So this post is not about DBZ?

Cause everyone knows Gohan is the pillow bitter of that crew.

Where do you see that I stated as such? My phrasing was:

Key phrase being "CAN BE." I never stated that it is, or it was. IF you had actually read and comprehended what was originally posted in the EQ Main forum, you would understand my point of view.

Uhhh...was this SUPPOSED to make sense? Or do you always just spout out some meaningless bullsh*t from time to time?

Yes, and yes.

Goddamn Tarv...your shallowness ceases to amaze me. If you had a f*cking brain you would comprehend that I'm not objecting to him using the term...just that he needs to learn it CAN be a derogitory statement and should be more conscious of how he uses it.

But then again, most of yall seem to have your heads stuck so far up either your own or someone else's *** that you can't see the true light of day

This is gonna be fun...



For the mostpart...you are right. But then again, that truly only applies to the masculine gay men and lipstick lesbians. There is no way you can't tell me you've seen a diesel **** or flaming queen and just didn't KNOW.



How much more wrong can you be? First off, since when was there a required time limit on oppression? Second, if GBLT's weren't oppressed, why the f*ck would we be having this conversation?



Riiiiight. So if we have the same rights as everyone, then why is gay marriage a controversy? I mean, you said it yourself...we have the same rights.



I won't even comment on this for a couple of reasons.
1) Assumptions are the mother of all f*ck-ups.
2) I don't even have an opinion on whether homosexuality is genetic or choice. I personally don't give a sh*t. Be who the f*ck you want to be and be kind to your fellow man.

Though, I would like for you to please define what "normal" is outside of christian propaganda and force-fed media hype.

Who's your best man Totem?

/wink wink

As has already been stated in another thread; homosexuality is by its very nature abnormal. Note I didn't say "evil" or "unacceptable" or in any way objectionable...but abnormal it is. The prime purpose of human sexuality is, as with all animals, to ensure the perpetuation of the species. Lesbians and gay men can't reproduce, ergo their sexuality- while perfectly acceptable in a modern society -can't be considered normal.

Try not to get all bent out of shape about it. Overly sensitive gay men and lesbians seem to have this need to force the larger het majority to say "You're JUST like us!!", and "Gay/Lesbian sex is a natural, intended part of human sexuality". Well, it isn't. It should be accepted as part of any progressive thinking society, but please don't play with words and try to make it seem like it's what nature intended when it gave men c*cks and women vaginas.

EDIT: As has already been stated by *me* in another thread...didn't want to appear as if I was fobbing it off on someone else.

Edited, Sun Mar 28 13:59:00 2004 by WorkFell

Workfell, if your definition of normal means in common with the majority, then you're correct.

If your definition of normal is broadened to acknowledge a population will always be comprised of heterosexuals and homosexuals (and those inbetween), that is correct too. You can call it "playing with words", but that's innacurate.

If it's not natural, why do a certain percentage of most animal species exhibit homosexual behavior?

I'm not bent out of shape about it. Some of us are just trying to raise the collective consciousness about these issues our ever changing society is struggling with. After all, everyone wants to be heard, understood and valued. That's a worthwhile goal to work for.

Not so many years ago, we weren't able to have such open debates. That's progress in my book.

corrected spelling

Edited, Sun Mar 28 17:54:52 2004 by Yanari

As far as people who are gay using the term gay between themselves with the meaning lame, that is their right. Much like A Jewish person telling Jewish jokes or a Black person calling another black person niger(mispelled on purpose due to bad word filter). When a person outside the race/religion/sexuality uses the same terms or jokes it is concidered derogitory not just by the peoples the words or jokes were aimed at. Anyone with any sensativity for the group in question will be offended. Reason being that it's wrong to put down any group of people based on a stereo-type, preconception or misconception.

People should be judged based on individual merits and/or faults.

For better or worse, the term niger is the best, or worst example of a term that can be freely used between a group of people, but is highly offensive when used by anyone outside that group. Here is the MSN Encarta Dictionary definition of the word:
nig·ger [ níggər ] (plural nig·gers)noun 1. a taboo term for a black person. 2. a taboo term for a dark-skinned person.
[Late 17th century. Via Spanish negro from Latin niger “black.”]

Word Usage:
Sensitivity:

This term is arguably the single most offensive racist slur in the English language. The fact that African Americans and other people of color sometimes use this word in reference to themselves does not excuse its present-day use by members of other ethnic groups. Those who persist in using it should remember that their use of the word reflects directly upon them, the users. The terms of choice are African American, black or black person, and person of color.

I highlighted what I felt was the most relevent part relating to the current issue. The term gay to mean lame has the same effect, but the fact that it is so common and freely excepted masks the truth that it is a slur meant to belittle homosexuals.

I said this in another thread and I'll say it here because it applies....


I understand that the term gay with the meaning of lame for the most part isn't aimed specifically at gay people with the intent of harming or disrespecting them, but the fact of the matter is that it does offend them and disrespect them. My point all along is concideration for other people's feelings. Knowing what you know now, why not just use the word LAME to mean lame since you wouldn't be offending anyone that way?

My general belief in life is to do whatever you want as long as you're not hurting anyone(including yourself) or limiting another person's right to do what they want. I'm personally hoping for a world where everyone shows concideration for other people's rights and feelings and we work towards common goals for the benefit of all. I know this may never come to be and that I'm an idealistic fool, but I don't think I'm alone in those thoughts. I also try to live my life treating others the way I myself wish to be treat, with respect and concideration. I may not agree with the lives that everyone else lead, but it is their right to lead those lives in peace. I'm also sure their are people who don't approve of my life for one reason or another, but should respect my right to live as I choose.

Unfortunately people are all judged based on one thing or another, color, nationality, religion, clothes, cars, sexuality, gender, age, income, friends, height, weight, disbilities, you name it, you'll be judged based on SOMETHING. If you want to build a better world though it has to start somewhere, so why not with us?


Edited, Sun Mar 28 16:04:27 2004 by KerikDaven

That statement would be more accurate if it was "If it's not natural, why is it that a small percentage of most animal species exhibit homosexual behavior".

In my opinion (and it is an opinion), an even more accurate statement would be "If it's natural, why is it that homosexuality, when present in other species, is always confined to a small percentage of said species?"

If there were examples of life on earth where homosexuality was prevalent, or even running along 50-50 lines, I'd be comfortable in saying it was "normal". But in every species where it is manifested, it's always confined to an extremely small minority.

I guess I'm just very black-and-white when it comes to language. I mean, a spoon is called a spoon because, at some point in time, someone looked at this curved thingy for scooping food into our mouths and said, "Spoon!". By the same token, "normal" means "what is the norm" and abnormal means "what is not the norm", and I think homosexuality definitely is not the norm. Ergo, it's not normal. That doesn't mean it isn't completely acceptable in our society.

The word normal, in this case, is used as a definition, not a judgement, and doesn't need to be redefined.

If marriage = children and that was the only variable in which we where arguing then there would be no discussion. However if I where to list out numerous benefits and shortcomings of marriage then this would be a gbajiesque type of thread. Now if you want to bring your marital life into this discussion I will sit back and read how your wife runs the show instead of you being in an equal relationship with her. Back to the issue of this thread though... I'm well aware of why marriages where used by the upper crust of old civilizations, those acts of marriage are about as relevant to this discussion as your sweater vest is.

BTW Gun control is about preventing murder. :)



I find it significant also, but that is their right to chose their sexual preference.